ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-04075-OMC-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-01
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Arizona Registrar of Contractors,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Design & Construction Builders LLC
License No. ROC 356091,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-04075-OMC-LS-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 20, 2025
APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Mona Baskin, Esq. appeared via Google Meet on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Exhibits 1-14 were admitted into evidence.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On December 11, 2024, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) issued License No. 356091 to Respondent.
2. Carlos Antonio Dominguez is named as a 50% owner/member and the qualifying party on Respondent’s License No.356091.
3. On December 21, 2020, the Registrar issued License No. 331731 to DC Builders LLC.
4. Mr. Dominguez was named as the sole owner/member and the qualifying party on 331731.
5. On March 7, 2025, the Registrar revoked License No. 331731 according to a Final Administrative Decision and Order issued in Case No. 2024-13807.
6. On March 25, 2025, the Registrar revoked License No. 331731 according to a Final Administrative Decision and Order issued in Case No. 2024-13276.
7. On March 25, 2025, the Registrar revoked License No. 331731 according to a Final Administrative Decision and Order issued in Case No. 2024-13806.
8. Mr. Dominguez was named on License No. 331731 at the time the acts and omissions occurred that resulted in revocation in each of the above cases.
9. On April 23, 2025 the Registrar issued a Citation and Complaint. Also on April 23, 2025, Mr. Dominguez filed a Written Answer to the same.
10. On May 12, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing setting the hearing for June 20, 2025 at 9:00 a.m., and mailed and e-mailed the same to Respondent’s addresses of record. The correspondence was not returned by the United States Postal Service as refused or undeliverable. On May 14, 2025, the tribunal also sent an Order setting the matter via Google Meet to Respondent’s addresses of record.
11. Although the start of the duly noticed hearing was delayed fifteen minutes to allow Respondent additional time, Respondent did not appear on his own behalf, through an authorized officer, employee, or attorney, and did not contact OAH to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
12. Michael LaClare, Assistant General Counsel for the Registrar, testified as to the above facts contained in paragraphs 1-8, and also testified that the Registrar had received two additional complaints against License No. 331731 that were currently under investigation, namely: Complaint No. 2024-13810, filed December 19, 2024, pending a hearing on July 15, 2025; and Complaint No. 2025-01512, filed February 11, 2025, which was still in the investigation phase.
13. Finally, Mr. LaClare testified that because Mr. Dominguez was the sole owner and qualifying owner on 331731, and had not resolved the three revocations associated with that license, he could not be a qualifying party and 50% owner on Respondent’s license.
14. In closing arguments, the Registrar requested that Respondent’s license be indefinitely suspended until he resolves all the issues in the three revocation cases.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
These matters lie within the Registrar’s jurisdiction, and was properly brought before OAH.
The purpose of the ROC’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors.
The Registrar bears the burden of proof to establish grounds for suspension of Respondent’s contractor’s license by a preponderance of the evidence.
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(20) includes among the grounds for suspension, revocation, or other disciplinary action against a contractor’s license:
[h]aving a person named on the license who is or was named on any other license in this state or in another state that is under suspension or revocation for any act or omission that occurs while the person is or was named on the license unless the prior revocation was based solely on a violation of this paragraph.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1162(B) and (C), provide:
B. For licensure regulatory purposes under this chapter, a licensee's qualifying party is responsible for any violation of this chapter committed by the licensee during the period of time that the qualifying party is named on the license. This subsection does not impose personal liability on the qualifying party for a licensee's violation of this chapter.
C. For licensure regulatory purposes under this chapter, a person named on a license is responsible for any violation of this chapter committed by the licensee during the period of time that person was named on the license. This subsection does not impose personal liability on a person named on a license for a licensee's violation of this chapter.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1161(C) provides:
After revoking a license on any of the grounds set forth in section 32-1154, the license may not be renewed or reissued for one year after final determination of revocation and then only on proper showing that all loss caused by the act or omission for which the license was revoked has been fully satisfied. For the purposes of this subsection, a proper showing may be made by demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the registrar, that the licensee exhausted all reasonable means to remedy the underlying loss caused by the act or omission.
The evidence in this matter is undisputed, and based on the record, the Registrar has established that Respondent violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(20), and more than ample cause to suspend Respondent’s license indefinitely under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1161(C).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
In light of the foregoing,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Registrar’s indefinitely suspend Respondent’s License No. 356091.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, July 1, 2025.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Mona Baskin, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General
[email redacted]
Design & Construction Builders LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff